I think the wheel might have turned in this health care reform debate to something I could solidly get behind.

Co-ops......allowing business to band together to lower the price. Way to go BO. That sounds good to me. No govern run plan but let us do it. No huge taxes or heavy cost(the devil is in the details though).
A large number of business corps banding together to get more for less. Nothing more american than that. Now the failure of one scares me a bit with govern coming in as the savor but we will see how this new twist plays out. Got to do a lot more reading but what do you guys and gals think. This might be a way to bring down costs without the govern mandate or huge tax increases.

It all depends on what a "Co Op" consists of and as of right now it is just an idea being floated since the Public Option is now DOA.

Public option is not yet DOA...don't believe the hype.

A co-op option won't likely save the patients one penny, so I don't see any reason to have it...any progressive worth his/her salt will vote against any bill that doesn't have a public option.

A co-op will just end up being more of the same, with the illusion of having done something...not an altogether unseemly proposition for the right wingers...

Fish on...

Todd

Yup Pelosi will add it back in with another 5 or 6 hundred page amendment to the bill 5 minutes before they are scheduled to vote on what ever they come up with.

Sure maybe they find a way to ram it home in the senate. One way or another they are gonna ram it home though.

Group Health WAS a Co-op until Kaiser bought them out.

Ya know KK, I listened to Congressman Reichart on the radio this morning, his take on things is a little different. According to him the D's aren't allowing any of the R's ideas to come forward. He said they don't even want to hear them. So as I have said many times regarding this topic, both sides are playing their little games. I guess that makes ALL of them a bunch of dickheads.

Today the GOP said "we aren't going to be part of any health care reform" .... as proposed by the Democratic majority.. Isn't that what was said?

Yup, do it with out them, and ram that public option home too. Who cares about the popular support of the people. Go ahead and commit Political Jihad. Good luck though, sounds like the D's are spending a fair bit of time fighting each other right now.

Perhaps the GOP sees how upset people are about Obama's health care reform (not to mention cap and trade) ideas and they don't want to be associated with it. Maybe the GOP sees that enough people are pissed about this and they want to be able to say "it wasn't us" when incumbents get voted out of office because families can't afford their electric bill any more, or because they are paying ALOT more in taxes to provide health insurance to illegals.

I'm just sayin...

Yup that may be true, but in the real world some cockstain lawyer will sue stating that not covering illegals is unfair, and some cockstain federal judge will agree. And if they aren't planning on insuring them why are the D's counting the illegals as part of the 47 million uninsured?

I don't believe that a "public option" allows for fair competition. Obama and others have all said that a public option is the first step on the road to a single payer system and that is where they want to go.

http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-...vate-insurance/

I would be willing to support reform and regulation of insurance companies as long as the referee stays out of the game.

Not being Insurance company Board members OR Executives, WTF do you care if Insurance Companies and Pharma stop making Trillions off your misfortune?

And if the Ref stays out of the game, then is there really a Ref? No there isn't

So KK. Are illegals collecting welfare? The answer is yes! They come here have kids, then become eligible to collect through their kids. Is it reasonable to assume that if illegals are eligible to collect welfare that they will also be able to take advantage of any universal health care? The answer is obviously YES! You never answered my question. If the D's aren't planning on covering illegals WHY are they counting them in the 47 Million uninsured that they want to cover?

Irie. There is a big difference between having a referee calling the game and playing in the game.

Executive pay isn't the only issue here. What about the ambulance chaser attorneys who get their clients lottery pay outs for stupid things. Why isn't that being addressed by the dems? Malpractice insurance is one of the main reasons health care cost so much.

Like I said I would support reforming the insurance rules,and would support some sort of federal rate structure. I don't give a rip how the companies use their money as long as they are paying the claims that they are legally required to. If the company does that and the CEO gets a million dollar bonus what do I care?

I've been a Group Health member for 17 years, and it's been a pretty good deal - until last year when we have to pay the usual co-pay or 10% of the actual cost of service, whichever is greater. I'm not sure if I'll stay with them or not. It was pretty good despite the many criticisms leveled against it.

Sg

Irie, the supporters of the GOP have a very consistent habit of voting for GOP "ideals", even when those ideals directly counter their own well-being...it's why there is always some sort of "anti-American" or some other hateful or racist tag attached to it...it actually makes their followers vote against their own well-being as some sort of self-sacrifice for the "American Way"...

Vic, when parties who can't compete have to bow out of the game, that's the absolute definition of "competition"...if competition didn't whittle out the dead wood, then what's the point?

If private insurance companies can manage to provide these things that they are utterly failing at right now...

1. Good care...
2. at an affordable price
3. And do so with no biases or prejudices

...then they'll be able to compete.

If they can't provide as good of coverage, at as good of a rate, to everyone...then they should not be in business.

That's the "free market" that your leaders are always spouting about...until, of course, that very same free market will put them out of business for failing to remember that competitive prices and good customer service are the cornerstones of good business.

They'll adapt...or die.

That is what competition is all about.

The cool thing about it is that if you feel so strongly about paying more for mediocre care...you can keep on doing so, and support those poor insurance companies in their battle to "compete"...until they either do compete, or die.

It's always "all about the money"...until it's their money...then it's "Socialism"...

Fish on...

Todd

KK I think I did answer you. There is a republican bill in congress that no one is talking about. Why? The D's aren't interested, and appear to be determined to do what they want. What happened over the weekend when Obama said a public option wasn't a deal breaker for him? The extreme left wing lost their minds, then the white house back peddled. Anything that gets passed will most certainly contain items that are unpalatable to the R's. So why go along with it? Why not wait and give the old "it wasn't us" when election time comes. Unfortunately that isn't any kind of real leadership. You'll get no argument from me about how lame it is. If both sides are really concerned both sides need to give. So far I haven't seen the D's give, other than the end of life care, and the only reason they gave on that is because they were getting smashed for it. Before ya go there,,, don't try to link me to death panels. I have said over and over that I am not buying into that.

We aren't talking about chump change here. It is estimated that welfare to illegals in California is costing the state 640 million per year. To say there will be "some" taking advantage of the system seems a little idealistic.

KK. I give on the malpractice insurance. Just checked and it accounts for 1 percent of health care costs based on the study I just looked at. Looks like you numbers are a bit higher.

Todd

The problem with the public option is, if it fails they won't let it die the same way a private insurance company would. Is that really fair competition? And Obama has said his goal over time is to drive out the employer based health insurance. Based on that should we expect him to play fair.

Sorry too many of you all at once sure I missed something.

Gee, KK....if all the Glorious Dems just get going they can get 'er done.........right? If you don't need the GOP vote, and can't get things rolling....who's fault is that?

The Co-op idea is, like Todd said, not going to save much, if anything, but may give some an easy way to have some kind of insurance.....it won't help the indigent at all.

The roadblock just might be that people (all the way from the top to the bottom) are waking up to the fact that there HAS TO BE an end to the free ride, and somebody's gonna have to pay the bill. President Printmore's popularity has just begun to suffer.